Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Share
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:40 am

    After WWII the light tank evolved to become various family of lightweight AFVs, and medium tank with heavy tank combined together to become main battle tank.

    Other opinons claimed that heavy tank was phased out due to overweight and cost issues, and the medium tank absorbed some vital traits of the heavu tank and evolved into MBT.

    But probably all agree that MBT is something has combination of strong armour, great firepower of the heavy tank, and great mobility, great speed of the medium tank, and is the standard model of heavy armoured forces.

    Actually sometimes it is difficult to make a clear distinction or a clear final answer about whether ABC is a medium or a heavy or a MBT, because all the events is a string of evolution, with gradual change over the times until people finally grapsed a good idea of what is a MBT. It's not like in a good day suddenly some people came on with a novel design and call it MBT.

    Basically I think it is safe to consider all medium tanks which appeared after 1945 as main battle tanks. The T-10, IS-xx, M103,... are not, because they are designed to be much heavier, much stronger than the average standard at that time, and the number of produced pieces is quite low.,
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:04 am

    T-55/55 definitely not, because T-10 was still operational for a few more years. The same goes with T-62, which was only a temporary solution until T-64 was fielded.

    They tested a lot of heavy tank replacements, including the IT-1 etc missile tanks and later fitted the T-64 with gun launched missiles.

    To be fair the US and France did the same with the failed 152mm Shillaghlagh (spelling) nd in the french case some 142mm calibre gun that was even worse than the US attempt.

    At the end of the day the US decided a modified M113 with TOW was cheaper and simpler, while the Soviets got gun tube launched missiles for most of its heavy gun armed vehicles including artillery, but also went for the Shturm/ataka on an MTLB chassis and now the Kristantema and Kornet-EM on BMP-3 chassis.

    I am not so sure about this. Latest T-90 has an armoured plate and extra ammo in an especial compartment. The danger lies in the extra rounds of ammunition stored in the compartment, not in the autoloader itself. In Chechnya crews removed these rounds to increase safety.

    Quite true... the T-90AM/MS has 22 rounds in the autoloader, protected, plus 8 rounds at the rear base of the turret in a covered box, while the remaining rounds are in the rear turret bustle separated from the crew compartment.

    T-80 autoloader has more rounds in AL (28 vs 22). The latest versions offer up to 1500HP, 40-50% more than T-90. They also incorporate a thermal sight. It is a shame they are going to be retired.

    The thermal sights originally fitted to the T-80s were domestic and rather limited... though certainly better than nothing. they were also quite expensive and were effective to a max of about 2-2.4km. Modern Catherine thermals fitted to the T-90s can see blades of grass at 2km, and were effective to 6-7km depending on the conditions.

    Garry, 28 rounds in the T-64 and T-80 AL.

    Which means 28 exposed propellent stubs... which will probably add 2-3 metres to the distance the turret travels from the hull.

    Can anyone explain why soviets never made any effort in making their propellants less dangerous to cookoffs?

    The only Russian ammo that suffers the problem is the 125mm ammo, which is in two parts to shorten the ammo and allow underfloor autoloading.

    As you might imagine having rounds under the turret ring means the parts of the rounds can't be longer than half the diameter of the turret ring, so a separate propellent stub means bigger propellent charge, making the round more powerful.

    And? That's what I've been saying this whole time, it was an outdated dinosaur "heavy tank" in the age of, well, anything else! It would be like bringing back the human-powered submarine!

    It was similar weight and had a gun that was just as powerful as the Centurion that was not outdated nor considered obsolete...

    "tiny and light". - Not at all, yeah it was smaller than the Tiger, but it absolutely dwarfed the Panzers. Why are we even talking about the Krauts? The T-10 was introduced into service eight years after the war ended!

    Most of Europe used WWII tanks for well over 20 years after the war ended...

    Nope, any credible source will call the Centurion the first MBT... The T-54, like I said, was a better example of one, but that doesn't mean it was the first one.

    Almost a metre taller than the Soviet Heavy tanks, perhaps your credible sources are biased western sources? The fact that they also had a heavy tank... the conquerer, makes the centurion a medium tank... not their main battle tank.

    The Centurion represents what a first-gen MBT was, and its successful variants (in service for many years) showed the flexibility (MBT-ness) of its design. I'd say that the T-64 was the first true second-gen. MBT though.

    In the Soviet Military the Centurion would be a heavy tank... in the British military it was a medium tank.

    However, what I'm stating, is that Stalin directly (or indirectly to some) influenced the tank, much like Hitler did to the Tigers.

    Don't really understand what you mean... most armies of the period had light, medium, and heavy tanks. The fact that Stalin didn't put an end to that at the time is no great surprise because it would take composite armour to get heavy tank protection in a medium tank chassis/weight range.

    That's what I said! Khrushchev "de-Stalinified" the tank, which supports what I said.

    Your claim appeared to me to be that the only reason the tank stayed in service was because it had Stalins name and his ego kept it in service after it stopped being useful.

    When its name was changed and Stalin was dead... what exactly kept it in service?

    Except if you are wrong and it actually had a purpose?

    It was a heavy tank.... That's what I've said a hundred times already... Anyway, the M103 and Conqueror were two other crappy-tanks, funny isn't it?

    You are not getting it.

    It wasn't a "heavy tank", it was a purpose built tank to have heavy armour and be able to engage targets at standoff ranges. For those purposes it had heavier armour than the medium tank and a bigger gun than the medium tank. The result is pretty much a tank destroyer that happened to be heavy. Its focus wasn't zipping around the battlefield at high speed popping off enemy tanks... for which a light small tank with a big gun would do well. It was pretty much a Tiger II.... except much smaller and lighter.


    You too? How do you guys not understand what I mean? Or is it just sheer ignorance? It isn't mobile, compared to other designs of its era. It was slow, heavy, had high-ground pressure, and was large! What does that equal, a (rather bad) vehicle when it comes to mobility!

    It was very mobile and could be driven over all types of terrain. For the job of firing at enemy tanks from 2km+ it had far too much mobility.

    So what! A tanks' role is no excuse for having dismissal range, and the T-10 would technically need it in order to "help"  (more like slow down) the tanks that it would "protect" and "breakthrough with".

    It creates the breakthrough, it does not exploit it... once it has shattered the enemy tank lines it goes back and rearms and refuels and continues to hit the front line to keep them engaged so they don't follow the breakthrough tanks and stop them.


    Lol, so I guess a tank doesn't need speed either, does it? Hey everybody, let's put a 100 hp diesel in the Armata, what an idea! If anything, a task like braking through enemy lines requires speed. Look at the Hellcat (an example here and not a comparo), it often went behind enemy lines, destroyed their armor, and got the heck out of there. Guess what (?), it worked! That is a much better design for what the T-10 did so poorly... A heavy-tank was (and is) a flawed ideology.

    Tell that to the Israelis... the Merkava has a top speed of about 55km/h cross country which isn't that much faster than the 42km/h the T-10M can manage.

    You don't understand... BD implied that its gun needed to replaced, and an enlarged T-54 gun would do just that.

    BD is wrong... the 122mm gun of the T-10M was powerful enough for the job... every bit as powerful as the gun fitted to the Centurion.

    I'm suggesting that for its size, the 122 mm wasn't all that impressive. A 100 mm would defeat the purpose of the already doomed tank design known as the T-10.

    Yet they didn't change it... wonder why?

    Once again GarryB, why all the excuses? Gun depression may not seem important, but armor-engagements throughout (modern) history show the opposite to be true. A similar situation to the Syrian one could have happened w/o much preparation.  

    They could easily redesign the tank gun to allow much greater depression angles... the cost would be a much taller turret, and as the turret front has the thickest armour a huge increase in weight of the vehicle. And for what? Careful use of the terrain should prevent or help anticipate such ambushes and across most of the flat open terrain it really wont be an issue. there will also be lots of places where the enemy can't be seen at long distances... they will hardly bring up the heavy breakthrough tanks to fight in hedgerows... Rolling Eyes

    But what would those dumb Soviets know about tank warfare... internet generals know far more.

    Because we aren't in the friggin 18th century where the enemy lines up in a line... Warfare is three-dimensional you know....

    So they will have random pockets of tanks all over the place?

    Good... a large number of the medium tanks can handle those without the need for a breakthrough tank.

    The M-48 was built on a similar ideology, was put into service right around the same time, and was a similar tank in general. Why not use it as a comparison?

    Because it was a medium tank... why don't we compare apples with apples and look at the M103 heavy tank... the first model had an 80 mile range and at 34km/h was slower too.

    Keep kidding yourself and I'll......... The T-64 was a completely different kind of tank, its role doesn't matter in that case. Never said its role was flawed....

    T-64 was their first attempt at a MBT that used composites to get heavy protection without a lot of weight, and a big powerful gun. It proved, like many heavy tanks to be too expensive, so they developed a cheaper tank to make up the numbers. the T-64 was replaced in service by the T-80, but when the SU collapsed all three tanks were replaced with a development of the T-72... the T-90.

    They went from heavy, medium, light, to expensive and capable in moderate numbers, and Cheap and good enough in large numbers, to expensive and capable but in moderate numbers.


    Not that I know of... Are there any? And are they built *for* recovering the T-10?

    Well what do you think? Either they left the tanks that broke down where they were, or they never broke down... Twisted Evil

    Sure it is, but one-piece designs are easier to transport and load etc. More so when there are not multiple charges etc.

    Funny, because they mounted enormous artillery barrages during the latter stages of WWII and most of them seemed to be 152mm, which is also two piece and much heavier than 122mm.

    Yes, can you read? For its size, the T-10's interior was small in comparison.

    Comparison with what? A matchbox... probably not.

    Interiors of most Soviet vehicles are smaller than western vehicle equivalents.

    A role that is would completely fail at doing! Lighter vehicles (back then) would have excelled there, much like the Hellcat did!

    Funny how the tank destroyers were withdrawn and stopped development well before the heavy tank... once medium tanks started getting medium and high pressure guns the tank destroyer became redundant... the heavy tank remained useful in places where its larger gun gave it a range advantage.

    I don't follow a thing that "Discovery Channel" (or whoever you mean) says. AFAIK, they don't cover anything military, at least here in the States'.

    He doesn't literally mean you get your info from DC, he likely means your information seems to come from coffee table books for the general public... ie Soviet tanks in 40 pages or less with all the myths and stereotypes included and much of the real detailed info edited out because if it wasn't it would be 4,000 pages and not 40 so no one would even pick it up.

    Questions are great, except for when nobody is qualified to answer them.

    Charming... just as well we have such well versed scholars as yourself to educate us.   Razz

    They fit perfectly into the medium tank category, and don't have the firepower of a MBT like the Centurion.

    That is funny because when the T-34 entered service in 1939 there weren't many tanks its gun could not penetrate and only heavy artillery that could pierce its armour.

    But I don't have a source so that can't possibly be anything but my mere opinion...

    There was no clear need... Other kinds of tanks could complete the same role more efficiently and quickly, w/o the complexity of a heavy tank. The M18 Hellcat had a similar role towards the end of the war (quickly break throw and destroy enemy armor) and was a great design in general.

    The Soviets had very few vehicles like the Hellcat... except a few vehicles provided by lend lease and the only real tank destroyers they actually built were the Su-85 and Su-122 and Su-100... I loved their nicknames... "Fucking end of everything"... meaning there wasn't much on the battlefield they could not destroy.

    The problem with the hellcat is its pathetic armour... the Soviets had plenty of experience during WWII with vehicles that did not have adequate armour... the T-26 was a prime example, and when the war ended you will notice the production of light tanks stopped... so why put a huge gun in a light tank?

    The purpose of a heavy tank that is used for breakthrough is for it to sit 2-3km back from the enemy lines and pick off all the visible threats... then send in the medium tanks using the heavy tanks to pick off anything that starts shooting at the medium tanks.

    For this role the heavy tank needs a long range powerful gun and it needs protection that will allow it to sit in one place for long periods without shifting position and pound the enemy vehicles... moving means not shooting accurately and not providing support... a heavy tank needs accuracy to hit targets at such range and to be providing support for the lighter vehicles.

    Other opinons claimed that heavy tank was phased out due to overweight and cost issues, and the medium tank absorbed some vital traits of the heavu tank and evolved into MBT.

    But probably all agree that MBT is something has combination of strong armour, great firepower of the heavy tank, and great mobility, great speed of the medium tank, and is the standard model of heavy armoured forces.

    At 70 tons most western tanks are heavy tanks.

    Basically I think it is safe to consider all medium tanks which appeared after 1945 as main battle tanks. The T-10, IS-xx, M103,... are not, because they are designed to be much heavier, much stronger than the average standard at that time, and the number of produced pieces is quite low.,

    Except the lines are blurred and it is not so easy to classify based on features... a Centurion would be a heavy tank in the Soviet Union, while the T-10 would be called a MBT in Britain... look at the figures.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:35 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Lol, so I guess a tank doesn't need speed either, does it? Hey everybody, let's put a 100 hp diesel in the Armata, what an idea! If anything, a task like braking through enemy lines requires speed. Look at the Hellcat (an example here and not a comparo), it often went behind enemy lines, destroyed their armor, and got the heck out of there. Guess what (?), it worked! That is a much better design for what the T-10 did so poorly... A heavy-tank was (and is) a flawed ideology.


    Tell that to the Israelis... the Merkava has a top speed of about 55km/h cross country which isn't that much faster than the 42km/h the T-10M can manage.

    At the year of 2014 most MBTs have the speed of 65-70km/h therefore the T-10 is much slower.

    But at the year of 195x-196x.... look at this

    T-62: 40-50km/h
    T-54/55, M48 Patton and M60: 48km/h
    Centurion: 35km/h
    Chieftain: 30-48km/h

    T-64: 45-60km/h, depends on the versions
    AMX and Leopard: 65km/h

    So in most cases, not much a different, isn't it.

    Assumed someone managed to put a 1,000 - 1,200 hp engine (like all of the current MBTs) into the T-10, it will not be slow anymore.

    GarryB wrote:They went from heavy, medium, light, to expensive and capable in moderate numbers, and Cheap and good enough in large numbers, to expensive and capable but in moderate numbers.

    And the Armata is... ? tongue

    GarryB wrote:Except the lines are blurred and it is not so easy to classify based on features... a Centurion would be a heavy tank in the Soviet Union, while the T-10 would be called a MBT in Britain... look at the figures.

    Off Topic All this make me remember about the three point of views which are used together in researching a material object: 1)comprehensiveness (all things are related and we need to study other fields to understand the targeted objects); 2)historical specificness (we need to put the object in the right time, right background and right conditions); and 3)evolutionary (nothing stay static, they all move, they will change sooner or later, and we need to know why and how they did change/will change)

    Oh I miss my Marxist class in high school.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Regular on Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:45 pm

    Our Interior troops are still using Soviet weapons. They could have went with Swedish AK-4MT, but they chose AKs. And they will be changed to newer weapons soon when there will be need. For now they do the job.




    And there are quite a few NATO countries using Russian weapons.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:08 am

    Regular wrote:And there are quite a few NATO countries using Russian weapons.

    Actually even the domestic weapon of the NATO countries in Europe adapted quite a number of techs similar to Russia, simply because they cannot accept the idiocy in M16A1 design.

    Countries like Germany dislike M16A1 and the NATO 5.56 to the point that they designed their own gun G11.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:08 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Regular wrote:And there are quite a few NATO countries using Russian weapons.

    Actually even the domestic weapon of the NATO countries in Europe adapted quite a number of techs similar to Russia, simply because they cannot accept the idiocy in M16A1 design.

    Countries like Germany dislike M16A1 and the NATO 5.56 to the point that they designed their own gun G11.
    It isn't a bad design... Technically, it has advantages (and disadvantages) over the piston AK design (many great videos on this, just look up DI vs AK piston or something like that), but IMHO piston designs are still superior. The A1 design was terrible, but that was the original model and hasn't been use for many years now... The newer design (as used on the M4) are far superior to the older ones, and solve most of their problems. - Eugene Stoner was a genius as far as I'm concerned, but he doesn't get much recognition for his work.

    Using a countries indigenous projects as proof of another countries product failures doesn't make sense... Might as well say that Russian aircraft are terrible because China is now building their own models.... Plus, the G11 was never mass produced anyway. Also. It wasn't built as an alternative to the M16 design, but rather as a case-less "assault rifle of the future".

    The 5.56 isn't a bad round, in fact, it is a great one. However, it isn't perfect for being an "assault rifle round". In other uses (mostly civilian), it performs great.

     - GarryB, I would reply to your comment, but to be frank, I cannot agree with a thing you posted. As a result of that, this thread will get trashed even further, which I want to avoid. Even though this doesn't make any sense, I'd like to say that "the fact that you have to defend this thing from .....".
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:41 am

    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:
    Regular wrote:And there are quite a few NATO countries using Russian weapons.

    Actually even the domestic weapon of the NATO countries in Europe adapted quite a number of techs similar to Russia, simply because they cannot accept the idiocy in M16A1 design.

    Countries like Germany dislike M16A1 and the NATO 5.56 to the point that they designed their own gun G11.
    It isn't a bad design... Technically, it has advantages (and disadvantages) over the piston AK design (many great videos on this, just look up DI vs AK piston or something like that), but IMHO piston designs are still superior. The A1 design was terrible, but that was the original model and hasn't been use for many years now... The newer design (as used on the M4) are far superior to the older ones, and solve most of their problems. - Eugene Stoner was a genius as far as I'm concerned, but he doesn't get much recognition for his work.

    Using a countries indigenous projects as proof of another countries product failures doesn't make sense... Might as well say that Russian aircraft are terrible because China is now building their own models.... Plus, the G11 was never mass produced anyway. Also. It wasn't built as an alternative to the M16 design, but rather as a case-less "assault rifle of the future".

    The 5.56 isn't a bad round, in fact, it is a great one. However, it isn't perfect for being an "assault rifle round". In other uses (mostly civilian), it performs great.

     - GarryB, I would reply to your comment, but to be frank, I cannot agree with a thing you posted. As a result of that, this thread will get trashed even further, which I want to avoid. Even though this doesn't make any sense, I'd like to say that "the fact that you have to defend this thing from .....".

    Stone's AR-15 is an immature design because at that time, design team does not have adequate experience yet. That's why the feeding mechainism of AR-15 is inferior and its successor, M16, suffered terribly.

    I heard that actually Stone did plan to further improve the original design and fix the shortcomings, but when Colt recruited Stone they only intended to use him as a figurehead. Stone was frustated and then he moved into other company and designed the Stoner 63.

    The errors in AR-15 and M16 were fixed in AR-18 and Stoner 63. It is a pity that AR-18 could not experienced commercial sucess, the gun has a good design. In fact it re-introduced the superior feeding mechanism of the Russian SVT.

    China designs different models than Russia, that's right. But in the past it is China who copied the AK-47 rifles and SKS, and these rifles had served for a long long time. Later Chinese rifles was gradually evolved base on that foundation.

    The G11 was never mass-produced simply because 1)the Cold War ended and Germany did not feel the threat from Eastern Europe anymore and 2)Germany was unified and the goverment need to divert funds for the sake of economical issues in the new conditions. The G11 design was quite exotic and it needs a great amount of funds, now with funds cut and no need for super firearms to counter Moskva, Germany stopped the G11.

    G11 is a gun with great quality and impressive traits. But it was too novel for the time and that amount of novelty is unneccessary. After all, G11's novelty means higer risks and more expensive, exotic material.

    The equivalent of G11 should be AN-94. The blowback shifted pulse of AN-94 is very similar to the G11 feeding mechanism in which the barrel, the bolt carrier, the bolt (in G11 are the barrel and the whole receiver) move together, and they freely slide over the remaining parts of the gun. That significantly reduces the effect of recoiling, reduces scattering and increases the accuracy in burst firing mode. The two guns have very high fire rate (~2000 shot/min) in short burst mode.

    Compared to the G11, AN-94 has less exotic design and used less exotic, expensive material. Nonetheless the AN-94 transmission belt is hard to produce in large numbers.

    I know it may be hurt but I believe that M16 was strongly rejected by Western Europe. For 30 years the Western Europe do not have a 100% true assault rifle. They had to put the 7.62 heavy catridge (for traditional rifle) into their assault gun and created the FN FAL and HK G3. Putting heavy catridge into an assault gun is not something very nice, but they accepted that rather than touching the M16. This is one of the most severe defeat of the M16.

    Some opinions claimed that the attempt to put 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm as standard NATO catridge is a idiot idea.

    For the 7.62 NATO, it was designed to mimic the trajectory of Mosin catridge, yes it is a heavy bullet for traditional rifle, not intermediate catridge for assault rifle.

    The original 5.56 NATO has a terrible penetration power and trajectory because it did not have aerodynamic design which reduce the air resistance and enable the bullet to whirl violently inside the human tissues. (some opinions said that 5.56 NATO and its predeccesor .223 Remington have origin from Mauser 1925 which is bullet for duck-hunting, therefore the damage power is low because you do not like to east a blasted and disfigured duck,, don't know whether this is right or wrong.). It used old technique of high rotation rate and fixed rotation axis, therefore cannot generated the "prop onto the nose" effect of the M43.

    Later NATO switched to the Belgian SS109, but since the U.S. insisted of using the same size, SS109 had to abandon the better aerodynamic capability and stick with the old fixed axis and high rotation rate. SS109 used the high rotation rate to strip off the cover and that cover fragments increased ther damage over human tissues. But the damage over gun barrel increased, too. The life span of M16 became lower, about 1000 shots.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:11 pm

    And the Armata is... ?

    Depends how much it costs, but will become the very expensive but also very capable heavy tank, used for breakthroughs or fighting enemies well equipped with anti armour weapons, or in built up areas etc. The Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon gun platforms will provide heavy gun support to their relative fellow vehicles.

    The T-90AM and upgraded T-72s will be the cheap numbers vehicles till the new vehicles are able to be produced in sufficient numbers to replace them.

    "the fact that you have to defend this thing from .....".

    Your problems with the T-10 would be the same as me complaining that the SMLE from the 1940s is not an modern assault rifle and is a dead end failure.

    Introduce it now and Yes... such comments are true, but claiming one of the best bolt action rifles from WWII is rubbish because of what we have now is just ignorant.

    As already pointed out several times the T-10 was not designed as a heavy tank... they didn't just say... hey we need a really big and heavy and slow tank to make in very small numbers.

    They started out with a problem... they needed a tank like a Tiger II that could dominate a battlefield and approach enemy lines but be able to stand off a couple of kms from the enemy vehicles and pound them with a big powerful main gun.

    The fact is that the result has heavy well angled armour, with a big gun and is roughly the same size as the T-54, and not that much slower than other similar tanks of the time is a credit to the design.

    It doesn't need to be fast, it doesn't need long range... I have seen no photos of it with external fuel drums... got lots of such photos of the T-34.

    But you stay in dream land and pretend it was a failure when it was operational all you like.

    Later NATO switched to the Belgian SS109, but since the U.S. insisted of using the same size, SS109 had to abandon the better aerodynamic capability and stick with the old fixed axis and high rotation rate. SS109 used the high rotation rate to strip off the cover and that cover fragments increased ther damage over human tissues. But the damage over gun barrel increased, too. The life span of M16 became lower, about 1000 shots.

    The British did a lot of work on intermediate cartridges and developed an interesting bullpup to fire their 7mm round. Ironically it was rejected as being too short ranged and the 7.62 x 51mm round was adopted. Ironic that later the even weaker 5.56mm round was adopted too.

    What I don't understand is all this BS about having the same ammo because up until the 1980s the US had the 45 cal pistol instead of 9mm...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:37 pm

    A small question: it is said that the askew air tube of AK-47 is a hard obstacle for someone who wanted to develop new guns based on AK, is it right ? The China QBZ-xx and India cannot used the AK-style air tube because of the different catridge therefore they have to adapt the FN FAL style. It is also said that the first AK-74s used straight, perpendicular air tube due to different catridge, later it revert back to askew air tube after modification about the pressure.

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  cracker on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    It doesn't need to be fast, it doesn't need long range... I have seen no photos of it with external fuel drums... got lots of such photos of the T-34 (you mean 54?).









    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    "the fact that you have to defend this thing from .....".
    Your problems with the T-10 would be the same as me complaining that the SMLE from the 1940s is not an modern assault rifle and is a dead end failure.

    Introduce it now and Yes... such comments are true, but claiming one of the best bolt action rifles from WWII is rubbish because of what we have now is just ignorant.

    As already pointed out several times the T-10 was not designed as a heavy tank... they didn't just say... hey we need a really big and heavy and slow tank to make in very small numbers.

    They started out with a problem... they needed a tank like a Tiger II that could dominate a battlefield and approach enemy lines but be able to stand off a couple of kms from the enemy vehicles and pound them with a big powerful main gun.

    The fact is that the result has heavy well angled armour, with a big gun and is roughly the same size as the T-54, and not that much slower than other similar tanks of the time is a credit to the design.

    It doesn't need to be fast, it doesn't need long range... I have seen no photos of it with external fuel drums... got lots of such photos of the T-34.

    But you stay in dream land and pretend it was a failure when it was operational all you like.
    No, they would not... At the time (keep in mind that it was in service through the CCCP's collapse), it wasn't a great tank.... And like I've said before, is was inadequate for its role! 

    You're the one saying that crap, not me................. Stop assuming.

    Doesn't mean it wasn't a heavy tank, so what's your point? 

    Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

    ....

    Why not? If it's going to be "breaking enemy lines" (it wouldn't, it would get murdered) it should have as much speed as possible. Range isn't needed in a role like that, but it is a great thing to have nonetheless. I'm getting tired of all these excuses...

    Cracker of all people posted pictures of that (them). - Thanks.... 

    Other way around....
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:36 pm

    To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:46 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?

    That is a concern, because if the ammo blows up in the bustle which is right above the engine compartment you will cause a destroyed or severly damaged engine, which will leave you a sitting duck without ammunition to shoot back and they eventually will destroy you anway, so that is a concern for crew saftey.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:49 pm

    But in tank without a bustle you'll still have a C-Kill(turret blown off) and a vaporized crew to boot. In both cases unsalvageable in a high intensity conflict.

    So which would you rather have? Deestroyed tank with crew surviving or destroyed tank and killed crew?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:00 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:But in tank without a bustle you'll still have a C-Kill(turret blown off)  and a vaporized crew to boot. In both cases unsalvageable in a high intensity conflict.

    So which would you rather have? Deestroyed tank with crew surviving or destroyed tank and killed crew?

    In case of T-72/80 the crew and ammunition is better protected than on any other tank when only arm the autoloader, it is behind main armor and better protected than any other tank and only a direct hit will blow it off same os any western tank, except they do not have armored bustles.

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  cracker on Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:38 pm

    Mike E wrote:

    Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

    Other way around....

    tiger 2, 69t, underpowered, miserable armour.

    You think a hellcat would destroy a T-10 on the flank like it could the tiger 2? no, T-10 armour is too much for this gun.

    69t vs 52t, in case you didn't know... it's not the same.

    the fact there were T-10M deployed in 1968 in CZ proves it was active 2 years after termination of prod and they didn't hesitate one second to use it operationally, they were prepared to heavy city fight like in 1956, and wanted big guns to destroy buildings.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:02 pm

    cracker wrote:
    Mike E wrote:

    Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

    Other way around....

    tiger 2, 69t, underpowered, miserable armour.

    You think a hellcat would destroy a T-10 on the flank like it could the tiger 2? no, T-10 armour is too much for this gun.

    69t vs 52t, in case you didn't know... it's not the same.

    the fact there were T-10M deployed in 1968 in CZ proves it was active 2 years after termination of prod and they didn't hesitate one second to use it operationally, they were prepared to heavy city fight like in 1956, and wanted big guns to destroy buildings.

    I wasn't the one comparing it, instead, I used it against GarryB.... 

    The Tiger-2 was a piece of crap, at least we can agree on that!

    The Hellcat's 76 mm could destroy Panther's and Tiger's routinely from the right angles, and it was going to be up-armed with a 90 mm had the war continued. IMHO, it could have fared well against (keep in mind that they have identical roles, roles in which they wouldn't be going up against each other at the same time) the T-10 and T-10M, more so if it had the 90 mm. The M36 could have destroyed it no problem (it had the 90 mm gun), though it wasn't as fast as the M18. The M18 is a great example of what a "break-through" tank (TD adapted for this role) should be. Fast - so it can avoid fire (more so than slower tanks) and destroy enemy armor ASAP (also allows the vehicle to return to friendly forces quicker). Light-weight - allows the vehicle to be transported with ease, is a big part of the speed factor, and makes it more mobile over rough terrain.  Simple - keeps the cost down, allows it to be produced in larger #'s etc. Combine these, and you'll get a great enemy armor destroyer/"break-through" tank. Armor isn't needed as much here, because the enemy (who'd be on defense) would have their heavy-armor mobilized anyway. The T-10M etc (any other tank with this role) would get knocked out despite their armor, as would the lighter-weight alternative. (The M18 was actually an "anti-breakthrough" TD during the early part of the war, but its role changed when the Nazi's stopped their offensives. - It became a break-through-like TD that would get through enemy lines, destroy their armor and positions, and get the heck outta' there (depending on the defense).

    Of course, 69 t is massive, as if 52 t isn't already... Plus, the armor used on the T2 was of low-quality but that is off-topic anyway.

    The conflict in CZ was nothing compared to a war against NATO, in which the T-10 would have been......
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Regular on Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:50 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?

    That is a concern, because if the ammo blows up in the bustle which is right above the engine compartment you will cause a destroyed or severly damaged engine, which will leave you a sitting duck without ammunition to shoot back and they eventually will destroy you anway, so that is a concern for crew saftey.
    blow up panels can help with this. And rest of the ammo can be stored in autoloader so if You get Your bustle damaged, you can use rest ammo in carousel.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Zivo on Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:40 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?

    That is a concern, because if the ammo blows up in the bustle which is right above the engine compartment you will cause a destroyed or severly damaged engine, which will leave you a sitting duck without ammunition to shoot back and they eventually will destroy you anway, so that is a concern for crew saftey.

    That, and the tank is going to immediately burst into flames.

    Bustles are problematic because you're putting your lightly armored magazine in the line of fire, instead of behind the heaviest armor on the tank. Even if the turret is rotated slightly, incoming fire could hit the protruding bustle. When you have long lines of tanks trading hits, that's a disadvantage. You need to view the Soviet design decisions within the context of the Cold War/WWIII.



    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:10 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:But in tank without a bustle you'll still have a C-Kill(turret blown off)  and a vaporized crew to boot. In both cases unsalvageable in a high intensity conflict.

    So which would you rather have? Deestroyed tank with crew surviving or destroyed tank and killed crew?

    In case of T-72/80 the crew and ammunition is better protected than on any other tank when only arm the autoloader, it is behind main armor and better protected than any other tank and only a direct hit will blow it off same os any western tank, except they do not have armored bustles.

    And in T-90A the ammo storage is placed so that it will less likely to be hit than older Ts, and there are additional protection plates in the autoloader which increases the safety. In T-90AM the turret bustle is designed to direct the blasting effect outward of the tank and decrease the damage over the engine and turret.

    @Mike E: armour is needed here because the T-10 is expected to open fire at very close range from the enemy front line, only about 2-3km. Some sort of a close range assault gun.

    The role of T-10 is creating a hole in the enemy line for the lighter, more massive and more mobile ones to get into. And it provide fire support, fire cover for the exploiting tanks, too.

    As the USSR had given the T-10 such roles, it do not need to be running like a Formula 1 racing car. Not to mention that the speed of T-10 is quite good. But it need to have decent armour to stay close the emeny front line and continuously engage enemy threat.

    Heavy or light... you are free to call the T-10. But at the time when it was born (195x), T-10 is not obsolete. It just become obsolete in the middle 196x when people managed to combine the tough armour, big gun with great speed and lightweight.

    About the Hellcat, I do not know much. Probably the U.S. used a different doctrine from the USSR, therefore they used different weapons.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Mike E on Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:24 am

    higurashihougi wrote:@Mike E: armour is needed here because the T-10 is expected to open fire at very close range from the enemy front line, only about 2-3km. Some sort of a close range assault gun.

    The role of T-10 is creating a hole in the enemy line for the lighter, more massive and more mobile ones to get into. And it provide fire support, fire cover for the exploiting tanks, too.

    As the USSR had given the T-10 such roles, it do not need to be running like a Formula 1 racing car. Not to mention that the speed of T-10 is quite good. But it need to have decent armour to stay close the emeny front line and continuously engage enemy threat.

    Heavy or light... you are free to call the T-10. But at the time when it was born (195x), T-10 is not obsolete. It just become obsolete in the middle 196x when people managed to combine the tough armour, big gun with great speed and lightweight.

    About the Hellcat, I do not know much. Probably the U.S. used a different doctrine from the USSR, therefore they used different weapons.
    Speed would replace the armor, as shown by the Hellcat. An assault gun shouldn't be used in a role like this one...

    Which is a good role, but other tanks could have done it much better... How about getting in their quickly, destroying all major threats ASAP, all while providing fire support. - This was the M18's role towards the end of the year, and it did it very successfully...

    It doesn't, but at the same time it should be as fast as the tanks it will later support and protect (it wasn't). The M model was fast "enough", but the earlier ones were crappy when it came to that. I'd argue the opposite position... Armor is great, but either (both) tank (the T-10 and M18) would be completely destroyed by an opposing tank (M-48, M-60 etc). What's the point of armor if it cannot defend against the enemies tank? - It didn't have great protection, hence why it would get destroyed.

    It itself wasn't obsolete, but the concept behind it was. 

    (Let me give you a hint, it did its job a million times better than what the T-10 could do (obviously it was older).

    Asf

    Posts : 476
    Points : 495
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Asf on Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:01 am

    Let me give you a hint, it did its job a million times better than what the T-10 could do

    What's because T-10 had other job, I think)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:00 am

    With the three photos posted above, the first one has a bicycle riding past and the other two are clearly in city streets during some sort of uprising.

    Urban combat would be places you would send your most heavily armoured vehicles, but as they are breakthrough tanks their lack of range would require long range fuel tanks to be fitted.

    There are clearly two types... one with single fuel drums and one with two fuel drums, both of which would likely be ditched when the combat area was reached.

    Most of the photos I have seen did not show external fuel tanks, these ones shown likely during the Hungarian uprising or something similar does not change that.

    No, they would not... At the time (keep in mind that it was in service through the CCCP's collapse), it wasn't a great tank.... And like I've said before, is was inadequate for its role!

    Explain its role and then explain precisely in what ways it was inadequate.

    Doesn't mean it wasn't a heavy tank, so what's your point?

    The result then was a heavy tank. Today it would be Krisantema.

    Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

    Hahahaha... the Tiger II a failure? Interesting delusion. The video posted above showed the T-10 can drive off the asphalt.

    Why not? If it's going to be "breaking enemy lines" (it wouldn't, it would get murdered) it should have as much speed as possible.

    Murdered by what? Which western tank could penetrate its frontal armour at 2km?

    Other way around....

    So you are right, and I am wrong... WTF did the Soviets keep it in service for so long then?

    They had plenty of Tanks... they didn't need to keep it in service at all.

    To the claim that bustles are worse because they're exposed to enemy fire: wouldn't that be irrelevant because even if the ammo is hit and a cookoff happens its of no danger to the crew(separate the ammo from them and channels the blast away from them) unlike if it cooks off in the hull?

    It will burn for hours and it will get very hot... there is no point having a 3 inch armoured door between the crew and the ammo if the burning ammo heats the door to 700 degrees Celsius.

    prepared to heavy city fight like in 1956, and wanted big guns to destroy buildings.

    And their heaviest armour protecting the crews.

    The Tiger-2 was a piece of crap, at least we can agree on that!

    Yeah... the western armour walked all over it... hang on... no they didn't...

    And I said they wanted something to perform a similar role to the Tiger II, I didn't say they wanted a Tiger II.

    The Hellcat's 76 mm could destroy Panther's and Tiger's routinely from the right angles, and it was going to be up-armed with a 90 mm had the war continued.

    Even with a 90mm gun that was never fitted to it, a Hellcat could not defeat a T-10s armour from 2km. the T-10 on the other hand would rip through a Hellcat like it was... paper.

    blow up panels can help with this. And rest of the ammo can be stored in autoloader so if You get Your bustle damaged, you can use rest ammo in carousel.

    there was an upgrade of the T-90 called Burlak which was supposed to have the under floor autoloader with 22 rounds, plus a turret bustle autoloader based on the automatic loader developed for the black eagle.

    The advantage was there would be 31 + 22 = 53 rounds ready to fire, the turret bustle would allow longer penetrators to be use and in fact as it was designed to be removable by crane and reloaded like a rifle magazine it would make arming the vehicle much faster... load a mag with 22 rounds and transfer them to the internal autoloader using the autoloading system, then  remove and mount the 31 round mag.

    An ejection system could be included so that if the turret bustle is penetrated and catches fire the turret can be turned 90 degrees and the burning autoloader ejected.

    Operationally the crews could be trained to use the bustle rounds first.

    In the end the bustle ammo was deemed too vulnerable and the T-90AM was selected.

    Speed would replace the armor, as shown by the Hellcat. An assault gun shouldn't be used in a role like this one...

    the Hellcat was an ambush weapon... not a breakthrough weapon.

    It doesn't, but at the same time it should be as fast as the tanks it will later support and protect (it wasn't).

    It doesn't follow the tanks everywhere... it just breaks a hole in enemy defences for the tanks to get through.

    It itself wasn't obsolete, but the concept behind it was.

    It was withdrawn from service in 1967...

    The Hellcat was ordinary... it had the same gun as a sherman... and not even a firefly... and could not penetrate a T-10M at operational ranges.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:What I don't understand is all this BS about having the same ammo because up until the 1980s the US had the 45 cal pistol instead of 9mm..

    The story of standardization for NATO weapons and ammo would have not become total BS if the NATO countries could have been allowed to choose weapons purely based on effectiveness.

    But then there are some problems.

    The first problem is that, a group of weapon-mongers want their designs and models to dominate weapon market. And weapon standardization means these weapon-monger will try everything to force the NATO countries to make concession and accept their designs, so that they can dominate the NATO market.

    The second problem is that but these design are pure bullshit. Too bullshit that most of the NATO countries cannot accept.

    That is the reason why EU went on fith FN FAL, FN FNC, FAMAS, HK Gxx, HK-417, RK 95, Steyr AUG, SA80, and so on. Although they have to make concessions, they cannot afford to let the failure designs dominate their army.

    Meanwhile many countries and organizations in this world volunteer to copy and follow that standard of AK-47 gun and M43 catridge design. Yes, many countries was not forced to have "the same ammo and gun" to USSR, but they do it with great eagerness.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Mike E on Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    No, they would not... At the time (keep in mind that it was in service through the CCCP's collapse), it wasn't a great tank.... And like I've said before, is was inadequate for its role!

    Explain its role and then explain precisely in what ways it was inadequate.

    Doesn't mean it wasn't a heavy tank, so what's your point?

    The result then was a heavy tank. Today it would be Krisantema.

    Yeah, a failure like the Tiger 2 that would get stuck in anything that wasn't asphalt, was a logistical nightmare, and would get knocked out by a TD that weighed half as much... Good job of proving yourself wrong!

    Hahahaha... the Tiger II a failure? Interesting delusion. The video posted above showed the T-10 can drive off the asphalt.

    Why not? If it's going to be "breaking enemy lines" (it wouldn't, it would get murdered) it should have as much speed as possible.

    Murdered by what? Which western tank could penetrate its frontal armour at 2km?

    Other way around....

    So you are right, and I am wrong... WTF did the Soviets keep it in service for so long then?

    They had plenty of Tanks... they didn't need to keep it in service at all.
    The Tiger-2 was a piece of crap, at least we can agree on that!

    Yeah... the western armour walked all over it... hang on... no they didn't...

    And I said they wanted something to perform a similar role to the Tiger II, I didn't say they wanted a Tiger II.

    The Hellcat's 76 mm could destroy Panther's and Tiger's routinely from the right angles, and it was going to be up-armed with a 90 mm had the war continued.

    Even with a 90mm gun that was never fitted to it, a Hellcat could not defeat a T-10s armour from 2km. the T-10 on the other hand would rip through a Hellcat like it was... paper.
    Speed would replace the armor, as shown by the Hellcat. An assault gun shouldn't be used in a role like this one...

    the Hellcat was an ambush weapon... not a breakthrough weapon.

    It doesn't, but at the same time it should be as fast as the tanks it will later support and protect (it wasn't).

    It doesn't follow the tanks everywhere... it just breaks a hole in enemy defences for the tanks to get through.

    It itself wasn't obsolete, but the concept behind it was.

    It was withdrawn from service in 1967...

    The Hellcat was ordinary... it had the same gun as a sherman... and not even a firefly... and could not penetrate a T-10M at operational ranges.
    Why not you? For its role, which is braking through enemy armor and personal lines, the tank wasn't adequate... - A big gun and lump of armor (lots of it , but it was spread out around the large body of the tank) isn't going to do this role by itself... Speed, at the very least, quickens the process and lowers the chance of getting hit by a possibly very-close-range enemy vehicle. Its size would screw it over in the bad conditions that one could have expected in WW3 (during the Cold War). Had they made it more compact (keep in mind with a more usable design), with more power, less weight (doesn't have to be dramatic mind you), and kept the 122 mm (at the very leas), it would've been able to complete its role much better. 

    ?

    The T2 was the definition of a failure GarryB. It had terrible protection for its weight, thanks to crappy armor, was slow as %$@&, would break down probably once a day etc... The whole thing was a giant mess that only Hitler ever wanted. I was talking about the T2 when I said "drive off of the asphalt". - Which is a reference for "off-roading" anyway.

    I'm sure there are many, but a quick tank could (deja vu it) easily approach it, get within range, and fire before the T-10 could even see it..... 

    Maybe they were idiots back then (/s). Who knows... Why does the US keep the M1 in service?

    A similar role.... So, it would break down and get stuck in mud... That's the role? Be more specific. 

    Sure it could rip it to shreds... But the M18 (with the larger gun) would use speed to its advantage.... Either way, the 90 mm gun could penetrate 8.5 inches of RHA at one kilometer.... 

    Which is basically the same thing... Like I said, later in the war, the US used the M18 as a breakthrough tank to go before the Sherman's etc.

    In which it can still utilize speed!

    The early-model M18 couldn't penetrate the Tiger, so how on the name of Earth did they destroy them GarryB! It really isn't all that hard!

    Sponsored content

    Re: USSR Tank development during Cold War

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:17 am